نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ملایر، ملایر، همدان، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
The establishment of Peace Courts is a significant recent development in the organization of adjudicating authorities within the criminal justice system. Assigning jurisdiction over certain offenses to these courts has generated disagreement concerning the nature of their criminal jurisdiction. This issue was addressed by Unified Judicial Precedent No. 875 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, which recognized the relative jurisdiction of Peace Courts. Using a descriptive-analytical method and library-based research, this study examines the legal foundations and implications of this recognition and critically analyzes the precedent. The findings indicate that the scope of the Peace Court’s criminal jurisdiction does not fully correspond to the traditional concept of relative jurisdiction. Certain provisions of the Dispute Resolution Councils Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly those concerning the separation of criminal jurisdictions and the joint adjudication of multiple charges, also create challenges for this approach. Moreover, the necessity of unified proceedings cannot, without a clear legal basis, justify departing from statutory jurisdictional rules. Accordingly, Unified Judicial Precedent No. 875 has not fully resolved the existing ambiguities; rather, its recognition of relative jurisdiction has raised further questions concerning the legal basis, limits, and implications of the Peace Court’s jurisdiction.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)